Just found these repro scopes on ebay item 261465492501 and 251517312025.PLA Outdoor store.They show pics of the guts.claims its a quality product. what do the experts think. .:thup::thdown:
WW II Enfield No 32 MK II MK 2 Sniper Scope Mount Pad Reproductions RSM | eBay
WW II Enfield No 32 MK II MK 2 Sniper Scope Reproductions RSM | eBay
Ain't convinced me yet. Want to know why? Once again, we can't see the focussing arrangement of the a) erector cell for the grat which looks a bit hazy (but that is probably multiple lens aberration and b) the MOST important, the object focussing - which seems to cause all the sodding problems. Certainly in the few that I have been asked to correct!
What a shame that they didn't just stick to the Mk2 range and deflection clicker plates. FAR superior and the same cost too!
Or better still, simplify and cheapen the whole programme and make Mk3's which are a far cheaper telescope. That's why they made them!
Lenses are good but coated with the normal Chinese green coating.
The mechanism and movement is horrible..... They have lots of work to do on them.
The post is a tapered post with NO horizontal cross hair and you cannot fit a regular Mk.1 or 2 diaphragm. The scope will require some work to add the horizontal cross hair with the diaphragm design used. This should have been done before release.
The design in general is good but the execution and quality is poor.
This repro 32 is much easier to work on than the last ones that surfaced, but again...they have a long way to go in quality control.
Up to my butt in other projects right now, however once I get time, in the next day or two I'll do a better write up and evaluation on the newest repro.
The previous repro's, while much more difficult to service when compared to the regular issue 32 were a better scope than this one..... once they were tarted up a bit.
caveat: this is my opinion and mine alone.
Attachment 52402
If the one I got from you is from the last batch mentioned Warren then I will have to agree that they are good scopes. Mine is still soldiering on, over 1,000 rds down the pipe now and has yet to be re-zeroed.
I need to email you to catch up, been a while.
A gunsmith friend in Florida who's building up a repro "T" for a customer recently had to remove the anti-rotation screw to index one of the REL marked repros as purchased/tarted up from Ontario. They definitely need to pay attention to detail a bit more in China! The bracket he got is one of DRP's excellent ones and not one of the cheap crap repros from Sarco and IMA so the bracket is definitely not the culprit. He's worked through it though and hopefully it'll function well for the shooter who's going to use it in vintage sniper matches.
The lesson here with the repros looks to be get one from Warren. While - and he won't mind me saying this - none of them are quite my cup of tea, at least one that's been through his hands has been 'gone over' and you know what you're getting. A bit of 'devil you know is better than the devil you don't know'. And has customers who are still using them and better still, are still happy with them.
I notice that the call them Mk2's (thread 1) but the clicker plate definately LOOKS Mk1 to me. Anyone else.......?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
If pads have been installed on a No.4 I can certainly see this happening. A chap here had the exactly same thing happen yet when he installed the same assembled scope and mount (also an RP mount) it on a "scopeless" No.4(T) problem was solved. It was not the first time nor will it be the last time where pads have not been installed correctly. I inspected one humper job where the cant was about 4 to 5 degrees. I am assuming the pads were mounted correctly with the scope in question, as this is being done properly by a qualified gunsmith/machinist and not just a humper in the basement with a hand drill as the 4 -5 degree one was.
The SXXXO and one other US retailer's brackets have been the death of more than one repro scope. The aligning slot on many of the repro mount is too small and the torque you can produce with the cap screws forcing the aligning pin into the mount slot will and has actually broken the turret loose from the tube. Things get REAL interesting then I can tell you. That is one repair I do not relish doing and have done a few on the brand X scopes.
Clicker plates on the RSM made scope do leave something to be desired, but until I get a closer look at the scope: see post 3. All the repro's need better clicker plates, bar none. Among other things.
Doing an autopsy on of the current crop right now.
The RSM scopes are the only show in town for now if anyone is looking for a repro 32....hopefully, they "tart theirs up a bit" or we get another player in the game.
I only had a few scopes and they long, long gone.
Regarding the FL scope, I told the owner to remove the aligning pin to get it level. Simple solution. About 1/4 of the real 32's I see have the pin missing anyhow. Peter can attest to that and they are pig to replace.
Looks like the post is a needle. And yet whoever is making the Zeilvier replicas seems to be able to make a proper post. Probably because they are made in Russia/Ukraine I believe.
The gunsmith in Florida has done several repro No.4T's and is the only person I refer folks to for a new build since I neither have the time or desire to do them here. He's an Engineer by profession and a "pay attention to detail" person when it comes to this type of work. He also uses electronic-digital instruments to collimate and adjust the bases and scopes during installation. I worked with him quite a bit when I was young and still in Florida and we've been helping each other out with tidbits for many years. I guarantee his pads are mounted and collimated correctly because he was very pleased the customer spared no expense and got quality pads and the bracket from England instead of the crap sold here. He said they were a pleasure to install compared to the others that usually need shims and other "tweaks" to get lined up properly. He wound up doing exactly as you suggested and it's installed level and serviceable. I've only seen a handful of original scopes missing the anti-rotation screw/pin of the hundreds that have been through here on the way to England for repair/service. The ones that were missing always seemed to have been got at by someone post military service, usually so they could install them in a set of commercial rings.
A fellow from RSM has been recently posting on some Enfield forums on Facebook trying to drum up sales for this scope. I asked the guy if all these issues had been corrected, he said yes via PM, but deleted the thread where I asked about the scope's flaws. Hmmm.....